- #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 844
- 15
Ultimately, philosophy is a subjective matter, but can it achieve an objective truth? Or is truth objective?
Originally posted by Kerrie
Ultimately, philosophy is a subjective matter, but can it achieve an objective truth? Or is truth objective?
Originally posted by Kerrie
Ultimately, philosophy is a subjective matter, but can it achieve an objective truth? Or is truth objective?
In that case my answer continues to be No.… referring to the definition pertaining to truth/reality/free from human bias
Originally posted by Kerrie
excellent reply les...when i say "objective", i am referring to the definition pertaining to truth/reality/free from human bias...yes, personal experiences do take us from that objectivity...so perhaps i am asking a question more of:
does philosophy strive to be true?
Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don’t believe anything people do is free from human bias, therefore, I do not believe that any philosophy can truly be impartial.
Originally posted by Mentat
1) It's not designed to obtain any truth. It can't even define truth; let alone obtain any.
Philosophy is designed to cause one to increase in knowledge. Knowledge is completely subjective, and thus is subject to belief, preference, and interpretation.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
One can stand on the bank of a river and watch the water flow by, which would be akin to being objective (where the scenery doesn't change).
With watching the water flow by there's always something interesting to look at. Air bubbles, sludge, fish and different water currents. There is always something new and different, hinting at is truth just the same and not the different?
I think what I'm trying to describe here is the process of being aware of yourself as you think, where your reference point becomes the "here and now," as opposed to getting caught up in your imagination and losing sight of this. Which, I also believe helps illustrate the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.Originally posted by mikelus
With watching the water flow by there's always something interesting to look at. Air bubbles, sludge, fish and different water currents. There is always something new and different, hinting at is truth just the same and not the different?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think what I'm trying to describe here is the process of being aware of yourself as you think, where your reference point becomes the "here and now," as opposed to getting caught up in your imagination and losing sight of this. Which, I also believe helps illustrate the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
Essentially yes, where objectivity involves an observation from a sense of detachment, and subjectivity involves being immersed in that realm (of thought, imagination, etc.) and becoming an active participant.Originally posted by mikelus
so would you relate subjectivity to your imagination or altered reality and objectivity to the here and now or truth of all realities?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
[]Essentially yes, where objectivity involves an observation from a sense of detachment,
Sounds fair enough. One's observations can only be based upon what one experiences. And so alludes to the title of this thread, suggesting that philosphy is the process of questioning such observations, and trying to understand them in an "objective sense."Originally posted by David Mayes
Yep...but realistically, whilst the objective individual attempts to enter this detached mode and apply quality amounts of critical thinking, the individual is still operating within a paradigm.
If this paradigm excludes God for ex, then NO amount of detachment/objectivity will ever convince this individual, IOW, objectivity is agreement between two or more people who support a particular paradigm.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sounds fair enough. One's observations can only be based upon what one experiences. And so alludes to the title of this thread, suggesting that philosphy is the process of questioning such observations, and trying to understand them in an "objective sense."
Originally posted by Iacchus32
. So what could that mean? [/B]
As far as I can tell, the word 'philosophy' has at least two different meanings. Sometimes it is used to refer to the academic discipline, which is centered around the ideas of people such as Plato and Kant. More often than not, at least in forums like this, it's used to refer to a particular mode of thinking in which we often engage.
I'm of the opinion that academic philosophy is, for the most part, completely useless.
Looking to the past, one gets the impression that philosophers had a huge influence on the way people think.
What we do see is something completely different: it's non-philosophers thinking about problems, doing their personal philosophizing, who discover novel approaches to old problems and bravely solve them. Then the academic philosophers come along and claim the merit.
It must be noted that academic philosophers have never, ever solved any real problem. For all their incessant babble, they have never discovered a law of physics, never found a method for creating art, a solution to world conflicts, the cure for any disease, or anything at all that counts for real achievement. So what is philosophy good for?
Good point.So, to answer the question "does philosophy strive for objectivity", I think it does, only we don't call it "philosophy", we call it physics, literature, politics, medicine, and so on.
Philosophy, in the academic sense, is the art of thinking about everything except things that matter.
But that doesn't mean it has no value, it can be highly entertaining. I certainly entertained myself writing this post.
Objectivity in philosophy refers to the idea that knowledge and truth can be discovered and understood independently of individual biases, emotions, and perspectives. It strives for a rational and impartial approach to understanding the world and the human experience.
Philosophy strives for objectivity through critical thinking, logical reasoning, and systematic analysis. It also relies on evidence, empirical data, and peer review to support arguments and claims, rather than personal beliefs or opinions.
Some philosophers argue that complete objectivity is not achievable because individuals are inherently subjective beings. However, by acknowledging and minimizing biases and actively seeking out multiple perspectives and evidence, objectivity can be approached and improved upon.
Striving for objectivity in philosophy allows for a more rigorous and systematic approach to understanding complex ideas and problems. It also promotes open-mindedness, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of different perspectives.
Some critics argue that objectivity in philosophy is limited by the fact that individuals are inherently subjective beings. Additionally, there may be limitations in the methodologies and tools used to achieve objectivity, as well as potential biases in the interpretation of evidence.